User talk:2604:2000:E010:1100:4555:796D:6420:2EB

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions&#32;so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply  [ create a named account] . It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a minimum number of days and made a minimum number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (2604:2000:E010:1100:4555:796D:6420:2EB) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Visium Asset Management
I reverted your edits to Visium Asset Management. Your concerns have not been discussed yet, and I will respond on the talk page more fully. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * That is completely inappropriate.

My edits were well-documented to RSs.

And discussed a week ago on the talk page.

Please self-revert. --2604:2000:E010:1100:4555:796D:6420:2EB (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, I am sorry I did not notice your comment on the talk page, but I really don't feel comfortable self-reverting at the moment. Let's just let Nikkimaria and Levivich decide what needs to be changed since we both seemed pretty opinionated on the matter. Sound good? btw, please remember to use they/them pronouns for me in the future. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A mass revert with zero reason - because we both know you had none - of clearly relevant material supported by a dozen RS about the company (not individuals in the company, and their other activities for example, and their post visium activities for example) - was to be honest very aggressive and not collegial and not what I expect from a clearly experienced editor like you. Seriously. You should not have done it. You should self-revert. I've taken your offer and addressed the lede. And can't believe that you reverted the infobox with any thought at all - so did that as well. But my comment flows through the entire article. There are two types of changes, other than the copyediting for improvement - they are the addition of material, which I think you will see is all relevant, so you should not have touched - and the deletion of material that I think is completely improper BLP violations, and I am not the first to point this out to you. And you are so skilled you must know what we are talking about. And I should point out that your edits sometimes even had errors, but I fixed them.

When it comes to "feeling comfortable," you should not feel comfortable doing what you just did. For the reasons above. That is why you should "feel comfortable" undoing it. Really not nice. 2604:2000:E010:1100:4555:796D:6420:2EB (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Aubrey Huff Good Article Reassessment
Aubrey Huff, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)